A Cross-Sectional Study and Observational Assessment of Shoppers’ COVID-19 Prevention Behaviors in Southwestern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to observe the level of alcohol-based sanitizer, mask use, and physical distancing across indoor community settings in Guelph, ON, Canada, and to identify potential barriers to practicing these behaviors. METHODS: Shoppers were observed in June 2022 across 21 establishments. Discrete in-person observations were conducted and electronically recorded using smartphones. Multilevel logistic regression models were fitted to identify possible covariates for the 3 behavioral outcomes. RESULTS: Of 946 observed shoppers, 69% shopped alone, 72% had at least 1 hand occupied, 26% touched their face, 29% physically distanced ≥ 2 m, 6% used hand sanitizer, and 29% wore masks. Sanitizer use was more commonly observed among people who wore masks and in establishments with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) signage posted at the entrance. Mask use was more commonly observed during days without precipitation and in establishments with some or all touch-free entrances. Shoppers more commonly physically distanced ≥ 2 m when they were shopping alone. CONCLUSIONS: This supports evidence for environmental context influencing COVID-19 preventive behaviors. Intervention efforts aimed at visible signage, tailored messaging, and redesigning spaces to facilitate preventive behaviors may be effective at increasing adherence during outbreaks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".